Feds refuse to explain secrecy in Ashley Smith case

The federal Justice department is refusing to tell Canadians how it spent more than $3.6 million trying to keep abuses against teen inmate Ashley Smith a secret.

“Our office stands by the redactions applied to this file,” Maria Petropoulos, an information co-ordinator, said by email.

The Toronto Star has filed a formal complaint against the Justice department with the Information Commissioner’s office, which investigates how government institutions handle requests for records to ensure these agencies are accountable and transparent in their operations.

In November, the Star asked the Justice department for a full accounting of legal costs related to the inquests into Smith’s death in 2007. Since Smith strangled herself with a piece of cloth while guards at Grand Valley Institution in Kitchener watched on Oct. 19, 2007, no fewer than four federal lawyers have appeared in Toronto coroner’s court making arguments to narrow the scope of the inquest and prevent damning evidence of Smith’s mistreatment from being aired publicly.

Their attempts failed. Shocking prison surveillance videos released on a judge’s ruling in the fall prompted the prime minister to order lawyers to start co-operating with the inquest. The video clips showed a docile Smith being duct-taped and threatened aboard a government plane during one of many institutional transfers and injected with powerful anti-psychotics against her will by staff clad in riot gear at Joliette prison in Quebec.

The Star wanted to know how many other government lawyers and employees have been involved in the case. Who are they? What did they do? Were external consultants hired? To what end?

The government responded to the Star’s request for information two months later with a 24-page file that was almost entirely blacked out apart from six separate sums for services rendered and disbursements. Added, the numbers total $3,633,878.90. An additional 559 pages were pulled from the file entirely. The redacted information, the government said, is protected “by virtue” of Sec. 17 (safety of individuals) and Sec. 23 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Access to Information Act.

Petropoulos said $3.6 million is a “conservative number” and does not represent work done by lawyers in three other sections of government, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Public Safety and the Correctional Service.

She would not say how many of these lawyers worked on the file.

“It’s privileged information. It would provide an idea of the relative importance of the file to the department and that’s something we can’t disclose.”

An expert in access-to-information legislation who reviewed the justice department’s file for the Star concluded that the government’s redactions were excessive and meritless in some cases.

The notion that privilege covers the number of lawyers working on a file and the number of hours they worked is “utterly preposterous and self-serving,” said Amir Attaran, a University of Ottawa law professor. It shows “either the profound ignorance or cravenness . . . of the Department of Justice when it comes to the ATI Act, and at least in this instance, the law.”

As to whose safety is being protected under Sec. 17, “your guess is as good as mine,” Attaran said.

On Monday, the Star asked the Justice department’s information office to reconsider its position on the file and put the figures in context.

Two days later, Petropoulos’s response arrived noting her office would release nothing more.

This is the second inquest into Smith’s death. The first ended abruptly in 2011 when the presiding coroner retired after legal wrangling. A new jury was sworn in by a new coroner, Dr. John Carlisle, this week. The jury will continue hearing evidence on Monday. Proceedings are expected to last six months to one year.

Feds refuse to explain secrecy in Ashley Smith case

NewsJan 18, 2013Guelph Mercury

The federal Justice department is refusing to tell Canadians how it spent more than $3.6 million trying to keep abuses against teen inmate Ashley Smith a secret.

“Our office stands by the redactions applied to this file,” Maria Petropoulos, an information co-ordinator, said by email.

The Toronto Star has filed a formal complaint against the Justice department with the Information Commissioner’s office, which investigates how government institutions handle requests for records to ensure these agencies are accountable and transparent in their operations.

In November, the Star asked the Justice department for a full accounting of legal costs related to the inquests into Smith’s death in 2007. Since Smith strangled herself with a piece of cloth while guards at Grand Valley Institution in Kitchener watched on Oct. 19, 2007, no fewer than four federal lawyers have appeared in Toronto coroner’s court making arguments to narrow the scope of the inquest and prevent damning evidence of Smith’s mistreatment from being aired publicly.

Their attempts failed. Shocking prison surveillance videos released on a judge’s ruling in the fall prompted the prime minister to order lawyers to start co-operating with the inquest. The video clips showed a docile Smith being duct-taped and threatened aboard a government plane during one of many institutional transfers and injected with powerful anti-psychotics against her will by staff clad in riot gear at Joliette prison in Quebec.

The Star wanted to know how many other government lawyers and employees have been involved in the case. Who are they? What did they do? Were external consultants hired? To what end?

The government responded to the Star’s request for information two months later with a 24-page file that was almost entirely blacked out apart from six separate sums for services rendered and disbursements. Added, the numbers total $3,633,878.90. An additional 559 pages were pulled from the file entirely. The redacted information, the government said, is protected “by virtue” of Sec. 17 (safety of individuals) and Sec. 23 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Access to Information Act.

Petropoulos said $3.6 million is a “conservative number” and does not represent work done by lawyers in three other sections of government, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Public Safety and the Correctional Service.

She would not say how many of these lawyers worked on the file.

“It’s privileged information. It would provide an idea of the relative importance of the file to the department and that’s something we can’t disclose.”

An expert in access-to-information legislation who reviewed the justice department’s file for the Star concluded that the government’s redactions were excessive and meritless in some cases.

The notion that privilege covers the number of lawyers working on a file and the number of hours they worked is “utterly preposterous and self-serving,” said Amir Attaran, a University of Ottawa law professor. It shows “either the profound ignorance or cravenness . . . of the Department of Justice when it comes to the ATI Act, and at least in this instance, the law.”

As to whose safety is being protected under Sec. 17, “your guess is as good as mine,” Attaran said.

On Monday, the Star asked the Justice department’s information office to reconsider its position on the file and put the figures in context.

Two days later, Petropoulos’s response arrived noting her office would release nothing more.

This is the second inquest into Smith’s death. The first ended abruptly in 2011 when the presiding coroner retired after legal wrangling. A new jury was sworn in by a new coroner, Dr. John Carlisle, this week. The jury will continue hearing evidence on Monday. Proceedings are expected to last six months to one year.

Top Stories

Feds refuse to explain secrecy in Ashley Smith case

NewsJan 18, 2013Guelph Mercury

The federal Justice department is refusing to tell Canadians how it spent more than $3.6 million trying to keep abuses against teen inmate Ashley Smith a secret.

“Our office stands by the redactions applied to this file,” Maria Petropoulos, an information co-ordinator, said by email.

The Toronto Star has filed a formal complaint against the Justice department with the Information Commissioner’s office, which investigates how government institutions handle requests for records to ensure these agencies are accountable and transparent in their operations.

In November, the Star asked the Justice department for a full accounting of legal costs related to the inquests into Smith’s death in 2007. Since Smith strangled herself with a piece of cloth while guards at Grand Valley Institution in Kitchener watched on Oct. 19, 2007, no fewer than four federal lawyers have appeared in Toronto coroner’s court making arguments to narrow the scope of the inquest and prevent damning evidence of Smith’s mistreatment from being aired publicly.

Their attempts failed. Shocking prison surveillance videos released on a judge’s ruling in the fall prompted the prime minister to order lawyers to start co-operating with the inquest. The video clips showed a docile Smith being duct-taped and threatened aboard a government plane during one of many institutional transfers and injected with powerful anti-psychotics against her will by staff clad in riot gear at Joliette prison in Quebec.

The Star wanted to know how many other government lawyers and employees have been involved in the case. Who are they? What did they do? Were external consultants hired? To what end?

The government responded to the Star’s request for information two months later with a 24-page file that was almost entirely blacked out apart from six separate sums for services rendered and disbursements. Added, the numbers total $3,633,878.90. An additional 559 pages were pulled from the file entirely. The redacted information, the government said, is protected “by virtue” of Sec. 17 (safety of individuals) and Sec. 23 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Access to Information Act.

Petropoulos said $3.6 million is a “conservative number” and does not represent work done by lawyers in three other sections of government, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Public Safety and the Correctional Service.

She would not say how many of these lawyers worked on the file.

“It’s privileged information. It would provide an idea of the relative importance of the file to the department and that’s something we can’t disclose.”

An expert in access-to-information legislation who reviewed the justice department’s file for the Star concluded that the government’s redactions were excessive and meritless in some cases.

The notion that privilege covers the number of lawyers working on a file and the number of hours they worked is “utterly preposterous and self-serving,” said Amir Attaran, a University of Ottawa law professor. It shows “either the profound ignorance or cravenness . . . of the Department of Justice when it comes to the ATI Act, and at least in this instance, the law.”

As to whose safety is being protected under Sec. 17, “your guess is as good as mine,” Attaran said.

On Monday, the Star asked the Justice department’s information office to reconsider its position on the file and put the figures in context.

Two days later, Petropoulos’s response arrived noting her office would release nothing more.

This is the second inquest into Smith’s death. The first ended abruptly in 2011 when the presiding coroner retired after legal wrangling. A new jury was sworn in by a new coroner, Dr. John Carlisle, this week. The jury will continue hearing evidence on Monday. Proceedings are expected to last six months to one year.